Clifton v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Clifton’s successive Rule 35 motion as time-barred and repetitive. Clifton’s challenge to the 2011 sentence modification was waived and did not satisfy plain-error review, while the record showed that counsel had notice and did not object. His plea-agreement, sentencing-concurrency, and ineffective-assistance claims likewise did not warrant relief because the plea and sentencing transcript contradicted his factual premise and ineffective-assistance claims must be raised under Rule 61.